One of my gripes with Halo Wars was the fact that 6 players was the max for MP (3v3). This normally would be fine, but it is almost a guarantee that at some point during the game, someone will resign. Which, more often than not, results in one of their teammates resigning, and the third one resigning. A similar scenario is when one player gets defeated, usually one or both of his teammates will resign/rage quit.
I think 5v5, or even 6v6 or greater (possibly even a 3v3v3 scenario??) , would solve this problem, on top of making gameplay much more intense. If one out of five players gets defeated or resigns, you still have four people on your team, so you would probably be less inclined to resign yourself. Of course, this would make games that already take 30-45 minutes, take even longer, so they could still keep the classic 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 game types as well.
Edited. I think the best balance is 4v4. Wargame also does a 10 v 10 it’s insane. if you want bigger then that, your totally going to have it where players command a platoon at most Wargame Red Dragon 10 v 10 match
Any bigger and it’ll be way to much, trust me. Even other strategy games that do 8v8 are intense
just realized I miss read it. No man, I play a ton of RTSs. 4v4. 8 players max in a match is the best balance. Any other game that really tries for more get a little to much
5v5 All the hawks would break the game, if its anything similar to the first.hornets= 2 pop 20 hawks each plus population boost for at least one person, if there is a populatiion boost tower would make for a game breaking 204 hawks rip any console and lots of computers.
I also think if someone quits early in a match or for no reason the teammates should get the bases resources and units split up. So it’s not a automatic loss
> 2533274835229788;1:
> One of my gripes with Halo Wars was the fact that 6 players was the max for MP (3v3). This normally would be fine, but it is almost a guarantee that at some point during the game, someone will resign. Which, more often than not, results in one of their teammates resigning, and the third one resigning. A similar scenario is when one player gets defeated, usually one or both of his teammates will resign/rage quit.
>
> I think 5v5, or even 6v6 or greater (possibly even a 3v3v3 scenario??) , would solve this problem, on top of making gameplay much more intense. If one out of five players gets defeated or resigns, you still have four people on your team, so you would probably be less inclined to resign yourself. Of course, this would make games that already take 30-45 minutes, take even longer, so they could still keep the classic 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 game types as well.
10v10 would be pretty hectic but I am not saying it would be a bad idea the biggest problem with Halo Wars imo was it only went up to 3v3 so having more players in a match would be great.
Only if there are more factions and/or subfactions. Otherwise there will be just oversaturation of the same leaders and units in the game which would be annoying.
> 2533274823217776;15:
> Only if there are more factions and/or subfactions. Otherwise there will be just oversaturation of the same leaders and units in the game which would be annoying.
I don’t think more people makes better gameplay when it comes to an RTS. I think 3v3 was a good size, maybe you could push it 4v4 and I am not opposed to the 3v3v3 idea, but I don’t think having 5 people on a team is a good idea. If early quitting is a problem then there needs to be a punishment system for quitters. I personally am also worried about people who do unbalanced rushes, like the warthog rush. It got to the point where I always had to plan to be hog rushed which really limited ways I could play.